Pity we don't have Pakistanis here to give us an insider view - even Asim doesn't visit anymore.As the closest we have to a Pakistani here, I will share my thoughts.

The real test for Imran starts now.All this while he was the challenger - he was constantly protesting against the establishment, whether Bhutto, Zardari or Nawaz Sharif.True, his party had won in one province (Khyber Pakhtunwa) but that gave him limited power.If anything, that win in KP only got him mired in more controversies.KP is a hotbed province for Taliban sympathisers - even Imran is supposed to have justified Taliban activity.At various points in time, Imran has bad-mouthed the US, bad-mouthed India, in fact bad-mouthed everyone. :-)Of course that is typical politics - you have to first win the masses over, so you say what they want to hear.

The bigger concern is that over the years Imran seems to have become more of a hardliner and ruthless politician.In the early years of his political career, it was largely "fighting for justice for Pakistanis against a tyrannical establishment, fighting against corruption". He would then condemn violence a lot. Came across as somewhat naive, but genuine and sincere.More recently, he seems to have become more of a politician.Hunting with the hounds, running with the fox types.More careful with his words, trying to please various interest groups.Many say he's close to Taliban.

Most importantly, how will he handle the army?'It is well known (at least in South Asia) that though Pakistan is a democracy, real power lies only with the Army.The PM is there for as long as the Army wants him or her to be in charge.Such is the power of the Army.They control huge resources - land, lucrative gas stations and so on.On Pakistan media, you will often hear trenchant criticism of the govt - but rarely ever of the Army.

It would appear that Imran has the blessings of the Army.Nawaz Sharif had too at one point in time - though he never seemed comfortable with it.

So what will Imran do now?

Well, he has his work cut out, for sure.

He has made a whole lot of promises - about good governance, eliminating corruption, rebuilding institutions etc.

How much of this he will be able to realistically achieve, or be allowed to achieve - anyone's guess.

In Pakistan, PMs are always one coup or Army move away from being chucked out, so you never know.

Having said that, Imran has finally got what he has been dreaming of for years!

he is popularly known as “Taliban khan” by pakistanis for a reason. he openly supports terrorists and is chummy with all militants. He got support of pakistani army that’s why he is “nominated” as PM by army. Everyone knows elections in pakistan is a sham for the west. Country is ruled by its army. A puppet would be put as a PM. PM can do nothing, as he has no power. I don’t expect any changes. Hell, being a cricketer he can’t even restore past glory of pakistani cricket where foreign teams can safely play in pakistan.

Let's see - like GS says, the Army in Pakistan calls the shots.Whoever is PM is mostly a puppet which the Army can use and dispose at will.Imran's big challenge will first be to assert himself and not be pushed around.

I'm cautiously hopeful.Politics in South Asia is often like a poker game. One moment you're on top of the world, the next you wish the earth would open up and swallow you. :-)

raja, how come you omitted his anti india rants? don’t say only selective reporting. he has no right to comment on kashmir that is an important & integral part of india the very first day. imran aka taliban khan is more of a puppet of talibans than army.

the most significant and corrosive element in the Pakistan election is the fact that as many as 460 candidates backed by terror groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its affiliates, including some rabid anti-Shia groups, were allowed to stand as candidates. Despite many voices within Pakistan being raised against according political legitimacy to those invested in religious extremism and terror, the deep state allowed this electoral transgression.

Going South wrote:raja, how come you omitted his anti india rants? don’t say only selective reporting. he has no right to comment on kashmir that is an important & integral part of india the very first day. imran aka taliban khan is more of a puppet of talibans than army.

the most significant and corrosive element in the Pakistan election is the fact that as many as 460 candidates backed by terror groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its affiliates, including some rabid anti-Shia groups, were allowed to stand as candidates. Despite many voices within Pakistan being raised against according political legitimacy to those invested in religious extremism and terror, the deep state allowed this electoral transgression.

Thing is, this is usual election rhetoric. Anti-India sentiment is useful in Pakistan for votes, just as anti-Pakistan sentiment is useful in India for votes. I wouldn't pay too much attention to these rants.

Imran has every right to comment on Kashmir, as Pakistan is next door to Kashmir and is being blamed for all that's going wrong in Kashmir.India can scream its guts out that "Kashmir is an integral part of India" - that doesn't make it an integral part of India. There have been massive human rights violations in Kashmir - by Indian armed forces. Many of the Kashmiri people do not WANT to be part of India - they have NEVER wanted to be part of India. Is it SO difficult to understand this? India keeps going back to that rubbish "accession to India" document signed by a Hindu king on 26th October 1947. You know what? That was signed under duress - India threatened not to help the king against marauding forces unless he signed on the dotted line. Such documents are not valid under normal law, since consent needs to be free, not coerced.Mind you, even at that time, that accession document was only provisional until the will of the people would be determined by plebiscite. Something that even the UN insisted on in 1949 and India AGREED to - but rather conveniently never held at all.

Look at it practically. Partition was done on religious lines - areas with Muslim-majority would be Pakistan, others would be India. Kashmir (the valley, not Jammu or Ladakh) was Muslim-majority. Logically it should have gone to Pakistan. Just because it happened to have a Hindu king at the time, and he was worried about HIS OWN future in an Islamic Pakistan, he dilly-dallied. Then when Pakistan attacked him, he signed off the rights of a massively Muslim-majority state to India? How fair is this on the people of Kashmir?

Ok, now many Kashmiris want their own independence - they want to neither align with India or Pakistan. So let them!I'm talking only about the small valley. Jammu region is largely Hindu, Ladakh region is largely Buddhist.It's only the Kashmir valley, predominantly Muslim, that's the issue.For India, it is this bit PRESTIGE issue - so it keeps parroting the same line "Kashmir is an integral part of India".

Am not saying Kashmir SHOULD split away from India.Am saying, since the accession itself was suspect and Kashmiris WERE promised a plebiscite, we need to honour it.If the plebiscite means Kashmir is no longer part of India, SO BE IT.Then get the hell out of Kashmir, and let Kashmiris live in peace in their country.And let those Kashmiris who want to be part of India (and there are many), come over to India.And if the plebiscite means Kashmiris WANT to be part of India, fine.They got an opportunity to choose - and they CHOSE India.

I know mine is a very unpopular opinion in India. 99.99% of Indians will disagree with me.But I care more for people than for politically drawn boundaries.

This isn't to find fault with the Indian Army. They are following instructions.But as long as Kashmiris aren't given a right to self-determination, India will be morally in the wrong.And so the poor Indian soldier will be fighting a morally wrong battle.

raja in a way you are justifying islamization of entire india state by state secede from it until no hindu is left. that’s exactly pakistan plan and you fell for it. first pakistan, then bangladesh, then kashmir then kerala, west bengal & delhi to follow that systematically do ethnic cleansing of hindus. look around. nip it in the bud and be wise towards nefarious designs of pakistan, don’t be an apologist. You just justified hindu killing from kashmir and then award them for it too. check how many non muslims left in pakistan or bangladesh. ever thought why only muslims left in india but no hindus left in pakistan or bangladesh? just because they all now belong to a certain religion thanks to ethnic cleansing, you don’t award countries out your land. that’s moronic.

I've heard this argument before - if India gives up Kashmir, isn't it a signal to other states to also start seceding from India?

My answer is always NO.

Kashmir is NOT like other Indian states.

Kashmir, from day one, was disputed. And is disputed to this day.

Already part of it is with Pakistan (Azaad Kashmir, that Indians call Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), part of it is even with China.Only a part is with India.'

Other states are fully integrated into India.

So if Kashmir chooses not to be with India, it doesn't mean Kerala or Bengal is next.

Even if they do have Muslim-majority (which they don't today, but let me indulge your fantasy :-)), secession is not on because that was a one-off, at time of India's independence.

As for justifying Islamization, I have done no such thing.

And I do realise that Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh have not been treated well by the majority community. That is very sad - Hindus in the rest of the world (including India, of course) should probably raise this issue with Pakistan and Bangladesh governments. Demand that Hindus in these countries not be treated like second-class citizens.

But be that as it may, this still doesn't mean Muslims should be treated like second-class citizens in Hindu-majority India. Apart from being morally wrong, it is also against the Indian Constitution.

You completely missed the point. if kashmir is of christian population do you demand a separate country out of india ? A moron mayor of london would demand a separate islamic caliphate country out of london as an islamic country out of UK would you give it out? if there are more people of indian origins in new jersey of USA do you go and demand a separate country out of it ? your argument to support kashmir is equally stupid.

I am in agreement with GS on this. Already there are demands that lower Assam be merged with Bangladesh as Muslims are now the majority community in lower Assam, especially districts like Goalpara, Dhubri etc. Uncontrolled immigration with very high birth rates among the Muslim community is causing a demographic imbalance in many parts of India. Marry 4 times as per Sharia, produce 20-30 kids.... If anybody says anything against this, they are labelled as communal. This is a genuine security concern.

I will go on record to say many right thinking and centrist Hindus have voted BJP only due to this real danger, not because they are communal minded.

I shudder to think what would happen to the next generation, this is not so much affecting Raja, GS or me but going forward there could be a demand for another Pakistan.

And liberals would be first massacred by Islamists if and when they come to power. For the Islamists, good meaning liberals are only useful idiots helping them in their eventual goal. After achieving power, liberals are the biggest enemy of Islamic terror organizations.

See Bangladesh, where bloggers have been silenced and killed one by one.

There is no danger like that regards Hinduism in India as it is a polytheist religion and there are all shades of opinion, several Hindus are atheist too.

I am digressing a little from Imran Khan but this is what is happening in Bangladesh. And this is penned in the Wire a left leaning publication which mostly pens reports which are critical of India' s ruling establishment and perceived to be anti Hindu. If Wire is critical of the situation in Bangladesh, we can imagine how bad it is.

New Delhi: Over the past few years, Bangladesh has proven to be deadly for bloggers and online activists. In the latest incident on June 11, after a brief lull in the violence, unidentified assailants shot dead a prominent writer and publisher in central Bangladesh’s Munshiganj district.

Shahzahan Bachchu, 60, was the owner of Bishaka Prokashoni, a publishing house that specialised in poetry, and the acting editor of weekly Amader Bikrampur. His publishing house is based in Dhaka’s Banglabazar area.

According to the Dhaka Tribune, Shahzahan had gone to meet friends at a pharmacy near his home in his ancestral village of Kakaldi before Iftar, “when the assailants came into the area. They blasted a crude bomb outside the pharmacy, creating panic. They then dragged Shahzahan out and shot him”, a senior superintendent of police was quoted as saying by the daily.

Although no group has claimed responsibility, the police has said that the counter-terrorism department is investigating the murder as a possible targeted attack by Islamist extremists.

Known to be a free-thinking writer who encouraged creativity and healthy dissent, Bachchu had previously received threats for his outspoken manner.

The International Federation of Journalists has demanded that immediate action be taken to arrest and punish those responsible for the murder.

Anthony Bellanger, the general secretary of IFJ said: “The IFJ is deeply saddened by the the cold-blooded murder of blogger and publisher Shahjahan Bachchu. Such attacks on writers and publishers in full public view have a chilling effect on freedom of expression are a stark reminder of the lack of security for journalists and writers.”

Bachchu’s death is the latest in a string of murders that have shaken Bangladesh and the international community. It began in February 2015, when atheist writer and blogger Avijit Roy was hacked to death as he was walking him with his wife after attending a book fair in Dhaka. The very same year in October, Roy’s publisher Faisal Arefin Deepan was also hacked to death at his office in central Dhaka.

Earlier, on the very same day that Deepan was killed, publisher Ahmed Rahim Tutul was attacked in the office of the Shudhdhoswar publishing house and seriously wounded. Two writers were also wounded.

Then in April 2016, 28-year-old Nazimuddin Samad was brutally killed in public view in the the crowded Sutrapur area by militants chanting “Allahu Akbar”.

“The shocking news today of Shahzahan Bachchu’s murder is a grim reminder that the severe threat to individuals who express dissident views in Bangladesh remains unacceptably high,” said Karin Deutsch Karlekar, director of the Free Expression at Risk Programme at PEN America.

On Imran Khan, would say 2 things. The election is disputed and there has been massive ballot paper rigging aided by the army.

2 The army still calls the shots in Pakistan, Imran Khan is just a puppet and would be removed at a time and place of the army's choosing.

At one time PPP was the army's favourite. The elder Bhutto was hanged and later his daughter Benazir assassinated. Nawaz Sharif of PML was nurtured by Gen Zia he has since fallen out with the army and jailed.

bolero wrote:Katto, that is true to some extent but Pakistan keeps claiming its a victim of conspiracy by US, Israel and India. That is Grade 1 BS.

It's problems are of its own making. A country built on the foundation of hate is doomed.

Just look at Australia and India which were once part of the British Empire. Both countries were not built in the foundation of hate.

I'm not giving them a pass, I'm just suggesting maybe some of the recent leaders are working in cooperation with the US Deep State and maybe there is a shift since Trump. eg Imran may not have been elected if Hillary had been President.I've got no evidence for saying this, just a possibility. I know Pakistan was involved in a lot of illegal trafficking of nuclear material.

Going South wrote:You completely missed the point. if kashmir is of christian population do you demand a separate country out of india ? A moron mayor of london would demand a separate islamic caliphate country out of london as an islamic country out of UK would you give it out? if there are more people of indian origins in new jersey of USA do you go and demand a separate country out of it ? your argument to support kashmir is equally stupid.

Once more. The basis for partition of India was on religious lines, since the Muslim League wanted a separate country.Christians did not ask for a separate country.It was Muslim-majority areas that were therefore sought to be carved out and marked as Pakistan.

So if Kashmir had been a Christian-majority population at time of independence it would not have been carved out - it would have been part of India.

The whole partition of India was a ONE-TIME affair where Muslim / non-Muslim was the deciding factor.It doesn't mean that if an area in India becomes Muslim-majority today, its claim for a separate country is valid just because Kashmir's claim is valid.Kashmir was part of that partition package - and therefore has a legit right to demand that India honours the terms of that partition arrangement.

No other part of India has that right, even if it becomes a Muslim-majority area now.That was a one-time arrangement THEN.

I'll give a simple, if silly, analogy.Say a company wants to restructure and trim its staff. It decides on a golden handshake - all executives with more than X salary are entitled to this handshake. The executives take up this offer, collect the handshake and leave.

Ten years later, another employee now gets to that X salary level.Can he demand that since he too meets that criterion, he should also get a golden handshake?Of course not!That was a one-time exercise, and applied to those who met those conditions AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.Not for eternity.

But then, if an executive DOES meet that condition at that point in time, but is denied this handshake (or promised it and not delivered it), surely he has a valid point if he makes a fuss about it? That's Kashmir.

If Indians form a majority in New Jersey and demand a separate country from the US, it would be an invalid claim because the US never promised to offer country-status to any community if it reaches majority status in any state of the US.If it HAD done so, yes, the Indians might have had a case.

Hope what I'm saying is clear. Not sure I'm able to articulate it well enough.

bolero wrote:I am in agreement with GS on this. Already there are demands that lower Assam be merged with Bangladesh as Muslims are now the majority community in lower Assam, especially districts like Goalpara, Dhubri etc. Uncontrolled immigration with very high birth rates among the Muslim community is causing a demographic imbalance in many parts of India. Marry 4 times as per Sharia, produce 20-30 kids.... If anybody says anything against this, they are labelled as communal. This is a genuine security concern.

bolero wrote:I am in agreement with GS on this. Already there are demands that lower Assam be merged with Bangladesh as Muslims are now the majority community in lower Assam, especially districts like Goalpara, Dhubri etc. Uncontrolled immigration with very high birth rates among the Muslim community is causing a demographic imbalance in many parts of India. Marry 4 times as per Sharia, produce 20-30 kids.... If anybody says anything against this, they are labelled as communal. This is a genuine security concern.

So what is your proposed solution then?

Uniform civil code. Muslims in India want Indian criminal law which is liberal and not Sharia where hands and legs are amputated for crimes, but they want to keep their Personal Law. This is not done.

Going South wrote:You completely missed the point. if kashmir is of christian population do you demand a separate country out of india ? A moron mayor of london would demand a separate islamic caliphate country out of london as an islamic country out of UK would you give it out? if there are more people of indian origins in new jersey of USA do you go and demand a separate country out of it ? your argument to support kashmir is equally stupid.

Once more. The basis for partition of India was on religious lines, since the Muslim League wanted a separate country.Christians did not ask for a separate country.It was Muslim-majority areas that were therefore sought to be carved out and marked as Pakistan.

So if Kashmir had been a Christian-majority population at time of independence it would not have been carved out - it would have been part of India.

The whole partition of India was a ONE-TIME affair where Muslim / non-Muslim was the deciding factor.It doesn't mean that if an area in India becomes Muslim-majority today, its claim for a separate country is valid just because Kashmir's claim is valid.Kashmir was part of that partition package - and therefore has a legit right to demand that India honours the terms of that partition arrangement.

No other part of India has that right, even if it becomes a Muslim-majority area now.That was a one-time arrangement THEN.

I'll give a simple, if silly, analogy.Say a company wants to restructure and trim its staff. It decides on a golden handshake - all executives with more than X salary are entitled to this handshake. The executives take up this offer, collect the handshake and leave.

Ten years later, another employee now gets to that X salary level.Can he demand that since he too meets that criterion, he should also get a golden handshake?Of course not!That was a one-time exercise, and applied to those who met those conditions AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.Not for eternity.

But then, if an executive DOES meet that condition at that point in time, but is denied this handshake (or promised it and not delivered it), surely he has a valid point if he makes a fuss about it? That's Kashmir.

If Indians form a majority in New Jersey and demand a separate country from the US, it would be an invalid claim because the US never promised to offer country-status to any community if it reaches majority status in any state of the US.If it HAD done so, yes, the Indians might have had a case.

Hope what I'm saying is clear. Not sure I'm able to articulate it well enough.

Counter question. If Muslims in India wanted a separate country which was given in the form of Pakistan and Bangladesh, why didn't all the Muslims in India go to Pakistan? Why are there still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. Why live here and abuse India, want your own laws start asserting yourself? Patriots are welcome but the majority are influenced by radicalism. And it's not the level of education which defines radicalism. Bin Laden was a civil engineer. The guy in Pune Mansoor Peerbhoy was from an affluent family and working I think with Microsoft at the time.

bolero wrote:Counter question. If Muslims in India wanted a separate country which was given in the form of Pakistan and Bangladesh, why didn't all the Muslims in India go to Pakistan?

Those Muslims who wanted to, and could go, moved.Those who didn't want to, or couldn't go, stayed.They were as much Indians as any non-Muslims and had every right to make the choice to stay or move.

Why are there still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan?How does it really matter how many Muslims there are in India or in Pakistan?They are still a minority community in India and, I daresay, treated like second-class citizens in their own country.

On what basis do you say Indian Muslims abuse India more than Indians of any other community?Even if this were true, remember, they are treated as second-class citizens - they are justifiably aggrieved by this.Kashmiri Muslims have been denied basic human rights - they have every right to abuse India.India is no paragon of virtue - and anyone who is critical of India, whether of the Indian govt or Indian society, isn't necessarily wrong.So lots of Indians (including myself) do criticize India - and some of these are Muslims. So what?

Patriots are welcome but the majority are influenced by radicalism. And it's not the level of education which defines radicalism. Bin Laden was a civil engineer. The guy in Pune Mansoor Peerbhoy was from an affluent family and working I think with Microsoft at the time.

Of course, formal education isn't the solution. Removing that sense of injustice and oppression is far more effective. When you stop treating Muslims as criminals or second-class citizens, they will stop feeling aggrieved.

Friday sermons are full of venom.I agree that anyone trying to spread poison or hate in society needs to be called out. I don't care whether it is an Imam in a mosque or a priest in a Hindu temple. Or any of several politicians who are constantly on this trip. One of them even got rewarded with Chief Ministership of India's most populous state. Spreading hate in society is a big NO-NO. It is easy for Imams to play with the minds of an oppressed society - the solution lies in making this society not feel oppressed.

Unfortunately liberals in India are quiet on this which is hypocrisy.It is fashionable nowadays to keep bashing liberals. Sure there are some fake liberals out there. But the biggest problem in India is NOT the liberals. It is the hate-spreading bigots. Blaming liberals is like blaming the media for not condemning arsonists, instead of blaming arsonists for committing arson in the first place. First let's be clear who the criminals are.

See comments above.

I'd like to add a few things.

1) Across the world, a lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. And yes, Islamic fundamentalists have done a lot of this. I will never support any violence committed by them. And yes, regimes in Islamic countries have been regressive, authoritarian, violate human rights etc etc. I don't defend any of this. And yes, Sharia law also prescribes misogynist and human rights-offending practices. I don't defend that either.

But here's the thing.'

Unless you can prove to me that a particular person is guilty of any of this, I will give him exactly the same respect I would give any other person. Just because someone is a Muslim, it doesn't make him less of a human being, or less deserving of respect. It doesn't make him a potential terrorist.

By all means, go after those specific Muslims who are damaging the peace in society. But don't judge every random Muslim.

2) While you're at this, please apply the same rule to non-Muslims too.

There are enough rabid Hindus in India too, spreading all sorts of hate in society. Should I then judge every Hindu out there, based on the hate speech of these rabid Hindus? A Hindu hacked a Muslim with an axe in Rajasthan and burnt him alive. Another group of Hindus shot dead a journalist just cos she spoke against Hindutva. Isn't this terrorism?

Should I then judge all Hindus as potential terrorists based on the actions of these guys?

3) While we are all, rightly, questioning Sharia law, maybe it would be good if people came out just as strongly against regressive practices in their own faiths too. Hindus need to question practices and beliefs in Hinduism too - and reform their own religion.

bolero wrote:Uniform civil code. Muslims in India want Indian criminal law which is liberal and not Sharia where hands and legs are amputated for crimes, but they want to keep their Personal Law. This is not done.

Have one civil code for all Indian citizens. That is true secularism.

I have no problem with a uniform civil code. It should also then take away Hindu-specific aspects of civil society today like Hindu Undivided Family concept.

bolero wrote:Counter question. If Muslims in India wanted a separate country which was given in the form of Pakistan and Bangladesh, why didn't all the Muslims in India go to Pakistan?

Those Muslims who wanted to, and could go, moved.Those who didn't want to, or couldn't go, stayed.They were as much Indians as any non-Muslims and had every right to make the choice to stay or move.

Why are there still more Muslims in India than in Pakistan?How does it really matter how many Muslims there are in India or in Pakistan?They are still a minority community in India and, I daresay, treated like second-class citizens in their own country.

On what basis do you say Indian Muslims abuse India more than Indians of any other community?Even if this were true, remember, they are treated as second-class citizens - they are justifiably aggrieved by this.Kashmiri Muslims have been denied basic human rights - they have every right to abuse India.India is no paragon of virtue - and anyone who is critical of India, whether of the Indian govt or Indian society, isn't necessarily wrong.So lots of Indians (including myself) do criticize India - and some of these are Muslims. So what?

Patriots are welcome but the majority are influenced by radicalism. And it's not the level of education which defines radicalism. Bin Laden was a civil engineer. The guy in Pune Mansoor Peerbhoy was from an affluent family and working I think with Microsoft at the time.

Of course, formal education isn't the solution. Removing that sense of injustice and oppression is far more effective. When you stop treating Muslims as criminals or second-class citizens, they will stop feeling aggrieved.

Friday sermons are full of venom.I agree that anyone trying to spread poison or hate in society needs to be called out. I don't care whether it is an Imam in a mosque or a priest in a Hindu temple. Or any of several politicians who are constantly on this trip. One of them even got rewarded with Chief Ministership of India's most populous state. Spreading hate in society is a big NO-NO. It is easy for Imams to play with the minds of an oppressed society - the solution lies in making this society not feel oppressed.

Unfortunately liberals in India are quiet on this which is hypocrisy.It is fashionable nowadays to keep bashing liberals. Sure there are some fake liberals out there. But the biggest problem in India is NOT the liberals. It is the hate-spreading bigots. Blaming liberals is like blaming the media for not condemning arsonists, instead of blaming arsonists for committing arson in the first place. First let's be clear who the criminals are.

See comments above.

I'd like to add a few things.

1) Across the world, a lot of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. And yes, Islamic fundamentalists have done a lot of this. I will never support any violence committed by them. And yes, regimes in Islamic countries have been regressive, authoritarian, violate human rights etc etc. I don't defend any of this. And yes, Sharia law also prescribes misogynist and human rights-offending practices. I don't defend that either.

But here's the thing.'

Unless you can prove to me that a particular person is guilty of any of this, I will give him exactly the same respect I would give any other person. Just because someone is a Muslim, it doesn't make him less of a human being, or less deserving of respect. It doesn't make him a potential terrorist.

By all means, go after those specific Muslims who are damaging the peace in society. But don't judge every random Muslim.

2) While you're at this, please apply the same rule to non-Muslims too.

There are enough rabid Hindus in India too, spreading all sorts of hate in society. Should I then judge every Hindu out there, based on the hate speech of these rabid Hindus? A Hindu hacked a Muslim with an axe in Rajasthan and burnt him alive. Another group of Hindus shot dead a journalist just cos she spoke against Hindutva. Isn't this terrorism?

Should I then judge all Hindus as potential terrorists based on the actions of these guys?

3) While we are all, rightly, questioning Sharia law, maybe it would be good if people came out just as strongly against regressive practices in their own faiths too. Hindus need to question practices and beliefs in Hinduism too - and reform their own religion.

I have few points to make.

When Partition happened, it was decided that a country was to be created out of India for the Muslims of the subcontinent, then undivided Pakistan. A good number of Muslims did not go to this newly formed country and stayed back, a good number still Harbour hopes of balkanizing India once again.

On the other side, Hindus and Sikhs migrated en masse to India. Those that stayed back converted to Islam in fear. Lahore was 40 percent Hindu and Sikh at independence. Hindus would be extinct in Pak in probably a decade from now.

That is not the case with Muslims in India. They have been thriving. The top movie stars are all Khan, they are feted by Hindus. Muslims have risen to become President of India like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Zakir Hussain and APJ Abdul Kalam. So on and so forth. Can go on and on.

I condemn lynching unequivocally, there is no justification for that. I feel it is orchestrated deliberately by Congress in BJP states and will stop once Congress is in power. In that sense, it is like the Award Wapsi thing. But I agree if govt officials fail to punish the culprits, it is dereliction of duty and blame would be on govt.

On the Gauri Lankesh case, the evidence is contradictory. Some say she was to expose something on Siddaramaih and it was a hit job. Recently a person was arrested who is very close to a Congress MLC.

It's very easy. You do a hit job and then pin the blame on the easiest punching bag. It's like a Hercule Poirot murder mystery

I am not surprised that Dabholkar, Kalburgi and Lankesh were killed when Congress ruled the state. The investigation turned cold because probably the state was involved. It is the responsibility of the state govt in this case the Congress to protect the individuals and solve the case.

And all 3 crimes are being pinned on BJP or RSS without a shred of evidence. Just that they disagreed on issues which is fair enough.

All 3 have badmouthed the BJP since long. If they had to be bumped off, they could have been done with a long time ago.

In a murder mystery, blame immediately falls on the usual suspect. Immediately media raises the agenda.

Meanwhile the investigation is derailed and the real culprits are scot free.

When Partition happened, it was decided that a country was to be created out of India for the Muslims of the subcontinent, then undivided Pakistan. A good number of Muslims did not go to this newly formed country and stayed back, a good number still Harbour hopes of balkanizing India once again.

On the other side, Hindus and Sikhs migrated en masse to India. Those that stayed back converted to Islam in fear. Lahore was 40 percent Hindu and Sikh at independence. Hindus would be extinct in Pak in probably a decade from now.

That is not the case with Muslims in India. They have been thriving. The top movie stars are all Khan, they are feted by Hindus. Muslims have risen to become President of India like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Zakir Hussain and APJ Abdul Kalam. So on and so forth. Can go on and on.

I condemn lynching unequivocally, there is no justification for that. I feel it is orchestrated deliberately by Congress in BJP states and will stop once Congress is in power. In that sense, it is like the Award Wapsi thing. But I agree if govt officials fail to punish the culprits, it is dereliction of duty and blame would be on govt.

On the Gauri Lankesh case, the evidence is contradictory. Some say she was to expose something on Siddaramaih and it was a hit job. Recently a person was arrested who is very close to a Congress MLC.

It's very easy. You do a hit job and then pin the blame on the easiest punching bag. It's like a Hercule Poirot murder mystery

1) Yes, while Pakistan was created as a place for Muslims, there was absolutely no obligation for Muslims to go to Pakistan. India proudly declared even then that India would always be pluralistic, where people of multiple faiths could live together, with equal citizen rights. This is an assurance India gave to EVERY citizen - it is enshrined in the Constitution, right in the Preamble itself.

To now treat Muslims (and Christians) as second-class citizens in India is unconstitutional.

Pakistan is an ISLAMIC country, and makes no bones about it. Its very raison d'etre is based on religion. Non-Muslims should be aware of this. This cannot be compared with India, which by definition is not a HINDU country, though Hindus make up 79% or so of the population. Muslims, Christians and others MUST NOT be treated as second-class citizens, they are as Indian as Hindus in India.

How do you conclude that a good number of Muslims who stayed back in India want to balkanise India? Don't you think this is the propaganda Hindu fanatics are spreading in India to create hatred towads Muslims? They want a HINDU country, so they demonise Muslims all the time.

2) The fact that some Muslims have achieved success in India and have occupied prominent positions in society and politics doesn't mean Muslims aren't treated as second-class citizens. There is widespread discrimination against Muslims in India, whether it is to do with housing or jobs.

3) I've seen this accusation before - that Congress is orchestrating lynching in BJP states. Can't agree. If Congress is orchestrating lynching, why are BJP leaders defending, and coming to support of, the lynchers? You can accuse Congress of a lot of mismanagement in the past (I have no love for Congress) - but today, with BJP enjoying huge power and majority in the country, with so many states under its governance, it's a poor excuse to blame Congress for BJP's own governance failures. Unless of course it has substantive evidence on this.

4) On the Gauri Lankesh issue, it is an out-and-out assassination of a courageous journalist by Hindutva fanatics/mercenaries. Cos she spoke out bravely against Hindu fundamentalism. The person who was arrested recently and who is being portrayed as being close to a Congress MLC is actually a hardcore Hindutva fanatic - check his FB profile and posts. He just happened to be working as PA to the MLC - this doesn't besmirch the Congress in any way.

5) The easiest punching bag today in India are the Muslims and Dalits. And of course liberals and intellectuals. Recently a BJP leader said if he had been made CM, he would have shot all intellectuals.

bolero wrote:I am not surprised that Dabholkar, Kalburgi and Lankesh were killed when Congress ruled the state. The investigation turned cold because probably the state was involved. It is the responsibility of the state govt in this case the Congress to protect the individuals and solve the case.

And all 3 crimes are being pinned on BJP or RSS without a shred of evidence. Just that they disagreed on issues which is fair enough.

All 3 have badmouthed the BJP since long. If they had to be bumped off, they could have been done with a long time ago.

In a murder mystery, blame immediately falls on the usual suspect. Immediately media raises the agenda.

Meanwhile the investigation is derailed and the real culprits are scot free.

Pakistan general elections was a fixed match. Imran Khan the opportunistic politician has nothing in common with Imran Khan the cricketer of yore. He is a mouthpiece of Pakistani rulers viz the Military. That way he is like the Manmohan Singh of Pakistan, only much more vocal when it comes to abusing those that the military wants him to abuse. I would expect India to keep ignoring Pakistan as they have been doing for the last few years.

When Partition happened, it was decided that a country was to be created out of India for the Muslims of the subcontinent, then undivided Pakistan. A good number of Muslims did not go to this newly formed country and stayed back, a good number still Harbour hopes of balkanizing India once again.

On the other side, Hindus and Sikhs migrated en masse to India. Those that stayed back converted to Islam in fear. Lahore was 40 percent Hindu and Sikh at independence. Hindus would be extinct in Pak in probably a decade from now.

That is not the case with Muslims in India. They have been thriving. The top movie stars are all Khan, they are feted by Hindus. Muslims have risen to become President of India like Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, Zakir Hussain and APJ Abdul Kalam. So on and so forth. Can go on and on.

I condemn lynching unequivocally, there is no justification for that. I feel it is orchestrated deliberately by Congress in BJP states and will stop once Congress is in power. In that sense, it is like the Award Wapsi thing. But I agree if govt officials fail to punish the culprits, it is dereliction of duty and blame would be on govt.

On the Gauri Lankesh case, the evidence is contradictory. Some say she was to expose something on Siddaramaih and it was a hit job. Recently a person was arrested who is very close to a Congress MLC.

It's very easy. You do a hit job and then pin the blame on the easiest punching bag. It's like a Hercule Poirot murder mystery

1) Yes, while Pakistan was created as a place for Muslims, there was absolutely no obligation for Muslims to go to Pakistan. India proudly declared even then that India would always be pluralistic, where people of multiple faiths could live together, with equal citizen rights. This is an assurance India gave to EVERY citizen - it is enshrined in the Constitution, right in the Preamble itself.

To now treat Muslims (and Christians) as second-class citizens in India is unconstitutional.

Pakistan is an ISLAMIC country, and makes no bones about it. Its very raison d'etre is based on religion. Non-Muslims should be aware of this. This cannot be compared with India, which by definition is not a HINDU country, though Hindus make up 79% or so of the population. Muslims, Christians and others MUST NOT be treated as second-class citizens, they are as Indian as Hindus in India.

How do you conclude that a good number of Muslims who stayed back in India want to balkanise India? Don't you think this is the propaganda Hindu fanatics are spreading in India to create hatred towads Muslims? They want a HINDU country, so they demonise Muslims all the time.

2) The fact that some Muslims have achieved success in India and have occupied prominent positions in society and politics doesn't mean Muslims aren't treated as second-class citizens. There is widespread discrimination against Muslims in India, whether it is to do with housing or jobs.

3) I've seen this accusation before - that Congress is orchestrating lynching in BJP states. Can't agree. If Congress is orchestrating lynching, why are BJP leaders defending, and coming to support of, the lynchers? You can accuse Congress of a lot of mismanagement in the past (I have no love for Congress) - but today, with BJP enjoying huge power and majority in the country, with so many states under its governance, it's a poor excuse to blame Congress for BJP's own governance failures. Unless of course it has substantive evidence on this.

4) On the Gauri Lankesh issue, it is an out-and-out assassination of a courageous journalist by Hindutva fanatics/mercenaries. Cos she spoke out bravely against Hindu fundamentalism. The person who was arrested recently and who is being portrayed as being close to a Congress MLC is actually a hardcore Hindutva fanatic - check his FB profile and posts. He just happened to be working as PA to the MLC - this doesn't besmirch the Congress in any way.

5) The easiest punching bag today in India are the Muslims and Dalits. And of course liberals and intellectuals. Recently a BJP leader said if he had been made CM, he would have shot all intellectuals.

1. See what is happening in West Bengal where in Muslim majority districts like Deganga Hindus are not allowed to celebrate Durga Puja in Muslim majority districts. This is a prelude of things to come.

Christians are doing very well in India. North East India is almost entirely Christian, they are safe, so are Christians who are in good number in Goa, Karnataka and Kerala. They are the only community who are actually advocating family planning and growth rate of the community is through large scale conversions which they are openly doing in India. It is estimated Andhra Pradesh is now 15 % Christian although official census shows 2 %. This is to do with converts hiding identity to get the benefit of reservation. Same with Punjab where Christians are said to be 8 %, official figures are far lower. Christians are in good number in the army, in judiciary, they are well educated and most are model Indian citizens.

2. Where are Muslims discriminated? This is the language of Owaisi and what led to Pakistan. The community wants to live in a ghetto, not mix with the mainstream and then say numbers in army are low. The professions are common like butchers, poultry, hair cutting and other menial jobs. The community needs reform from within. There are some Muslims who have done very well in India though like APJ Abdul Kalam and Syed Ata Hasnain.

Again I reiterate, the language used in the Friday sermons are venomous and constant references are being made to non Muslims as kafirs. I have heard some of these sermons and can understand what is spoken. So instead of a victim mentality, the community needs to question itself and reform. They need to oppose medieval practices like Triple Talaq and Niqah Halala.

3. I agree that law and order is the function of the state govt and they would be held to account even if this is the handiwork of Congress.

4. Till I see convictions by court of law, I am circumspect. Media leaks are motivated.

5. Motor mouths are the bane of the BJP. The minute they see a Mike, there are repeat offenders who like some self publicity. This will cost the party.

OK enough said on the internal situation in India. We have well and truly deviated.

Imran Khan will have his hands full, Pakistans economic situation is precarious and it has Forex resources to cover just 2 months of imports. If there is no bailout, Pak will default on its international loan payments.

bolero wrote:OK enough said on the internal situation in India. We have well and truly deviated.

Imran Khan will have his hands full, Pakistans economic situation is precarious and it has Forex resources to cover just 2 months of imports. If there is no bailout, Pak will default on its international loan payments.

\

Pakistan's foreign exchange reserves amount to $9 billions which is small change for major economies (India included). Even Nepal, the poorest country in the India sub continent has more foreign exchange reserve than Pakistan. Pakistan is considering going to IMF for a bailout package. A country going to IMF for this reason is as good as that country's economy being in ICU and on ventilator.